This study looked at whether or not the implementation of same sex marriage legislation at the state level reduced ADOLESCENT suicide attempts. The authors analysed data from 762,628 students collected from Jan 1,1999 to Dec 31, 2015, during which time 32 states had implemented same-sex marriage laws. They controlled for state, age, race, and year of implementation and measured whether or not respondents reported 1 or more suicide attempts in last 12 months.

WHAT THE STUDY DID SHOW?

According to their analysis, same sex marriage laws reduce suicide attempts by from 8.6% of all participants to 8% ( 7% relative reduction). For students that identified as ‘sexual minority’ the reduction was from 28.5% to 24.5% (14% overall reduction).

WHAT THE STUDY DID NOT SHOW?

This seems convincing evidence that same sex marriage laws reduce suicide rates but a closer examination of the issue reveals a number of problems with drawing such a conclusion.). They can be placed in 3 broad categories:

A. Consistency with other SSM research

The results are contrary to a recent study from Sweden, which has had same sex marriage LONGER than any of the US states and still shows that suicide rates among same sex marriages are 2.8 times as high as heterosexual marriages.

B. Correlation DOES NOT MEAN causation.

Just because YOUTH suicide rates dropped at the same time as SSM laws were introduced does not mean that SSM laws were the cause. The study did not show any CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between SSM laws and youth suicides. The authors admit this stating that ‘our analysis did not allow us to understand the mechanisms through which implementation of same sex marriage policies reduced adolescent suicide attempts. It did not show any CONVINCING EVIDENCE suggesting that SSM could reduce suicide rates. The authors again state that ‘the analyses on the association between implementation of SSM policies and adolescent suicide attempts among those identifying as sexual minorities should be interpreted with caution given the limited data availability on sexual orientation and the potential for SSM to affect sexual minority identity.

C.Sample and analysis problems.

There are many issues with the analysis used and they are summarised as follow:

Sample size. It is well appreciated that studies using a small sample size tend to find ‘no differences’ when there REALLY ARE differences. The reverse is true for large samples- you tend to find differences when there REALLY ARE NO differences. The authors used a massive sample size and this means that the risk that ‘false differences’ would be found increases substantially

The authors report 0.6% drop for ALL TEENS and 4% drop for sexual minority teens. What about the ‘straight’ teens? What happened to their suicide attempts to turn the 4 percentage points for minorities into 0.6 percentage points overall? Did they stay the same? Did they in fact increase? We don’t know because the authors do not tell us.

The error bars for the 0.6 point drop were 0.1 to 1.2 and those for the sexual minorities, and for the 4 point drop were 1.2 to 6.9. This means that the real decrease could have been either negligible on the one hand and more extreme on the other.

They did not account for socioeconomic status or other differences between states that may or may not have changed over time and that could have accounted for the differences. Having 50 different states to analyse only compounds this problem even more.

They lumped ALL the sexual minorities together ie gay/lesbian (2% of population) with ‘not sure’ (3% of population with bisexuals (6% of population). Given that bisexuals outnumber homosexuals 3 to 1, it is reasonable to assume that the bigger reduction in suicide among sexual minorities could have been due to less bisexual suicide attempts. But, why should same sex marriage laws make ANY difference to bisexuals?

The authors themselves recognise the difficulty in attributing changes in sexual minority suicide attempts to SSM. They state that ‘the analyses on the association between implementation of SSM policies and adolescent suicide attempts among those identifying as sexual minorities should be interpreted with caution given the limited data availability on sexual orientation and the potential for SSM to affect sexual minority identity.

The study measured suicide attempts in ADOLESCENTS. Same sex marriage legislation is for ADULTS. By what logical mechanism could such laws directly impact adolescents so much that less attempted suicide?

The reported decreases were the results of a statistical modelling process called ‘linear regression analysis’ but were not observed reductions from the raw data. Basically they come from the formula used to combine all states into one figure and represent ‘weighted averages’ rather than any overall observed change.

What should we take away?

Assuming the study is accurate, there may be an association between SSM and reduction in youth suicide IN THE UNITED STATES. Association and causation are two different things however and the study provides no evidence of causation.

For many same sex couples, SSM laws in the US DID MAKE A DIFFERENCE to rights, especially access to quality health care but this is not relevant to Australian situation where EVERYONE has access to health care via Medicare. So, given that the health care systems in the US and Australia are RADICALLY DIFFERENT, we cannot extrapolate these results to the Australian situation. The study is not consistent with Swedish research that shows that men in SSM are 2.8x more likely to suicide than men in heterosexual marriage. Sweden has a nationalised health care system similar to Australia and has had SSM or civil unions since 1995.

So while the study may be a good introduction to SSM in the US, further research into whether or not there is an association and what the mechanisms could be is warranted. It also has very limited applicability to the Australian debate on SSM.

Mark Regnerus and William Briggs have written critiques of this study . Regnerus sums up the issues very well as follows:‘SSM signifies many things to its fans and its foes..But is it a robust, long-term panacea for the emotional struggles of teenagers? My concerns about the fragility of this new study, together with the evidence from tolerant Sweden, suggest the answer is ‘unlikely’.

Leave a reply

Please find below key points you may wish to consider when sending a message of opposition to your local Member of Parliament if they support same sex marriage.

These points should be used as a foundation of your email but we recommend you personalise the email to ENSURE YOUR IMPORTANT MESSAGE IS NOT IGNORED.

Be friendly, polite and urge your MPs to let the people vote on this issue.

YOUR MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO MPS WHO SUPPORT SSM SHOULD CONTAIN AT THE VERY LEAST THESE 4 KEY POINTS:

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I am strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage to allow Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

You have been identified as a supporter of SSM on the ‘Australians for Marriage Equality’ (AME) website. If you do not support SSM, then I urge you to have your name removed from the AME website

If you do indeed support SSM then I will be unable to vote for you at the next election. I will also be unable to vote for ANY POLITICAL PARTY that officially supports SSM.

I will be telling my friends and family to do the same thing. ‘

IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE DETAIL, THEN SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 4 POINTS COULD BE INCLUDED

I believe that the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that wherever possible, children are raised by their biological mother and father. Marriage is therefore about what is best for our kids, not about validating the desires and feelings of adults.

Marriage is the foundational institution of our society and any redefinition to allow SSM has the potential to have significantly negative effects on our society.

The LGBTI population represents only 3% of the Australian population and only 0.7% of cohabiting couples (Australian Bureau Statistics). These couples ALREADY HAVE all the same rights as heterosexual de facto relationships. Why are we risking major societal change changing marriage laws for a small minority of Australians to give them much the same rights as they ALREADY HAVE?

SOME POSTCODES MAY SHOW MORE THAN ONE MP. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL THE MPS SHOWN

Please find below key points you may wish to consider when sending a message of support to your local Member of Parliament if they oppose same sex marriage.

These points should be used as a foundation of your email but we recommend you personalise the email to ENSURE YOUR IMPORTANT MESSAGE IS NOT IGNORED.

Be friendly, polite and urge your MPs to let the people vote on this issue.

YOUR MESSAGE OF OPPOSITION TO MPS WHO SUPPORT SSM SHOULD CONTAIN AT THE VERY LEAST THESE 4 KEY POINTS:

I believe marriage should remain between a man and a woman. I am strongly opposed to the redefinition of marriage to allow Same Sex Marriage (SSM). It is my understanding that you also support marriage remaining between a man and a woman and I congratulate you for that.

This issue will decide my vote in future elections. If you continue to oppose SSM then I will vote for you.

If you change your position then unfortunately I will be unable to vote for you or ANY POLITICAL PARTY that officially supports SSM.

I will be telling my friends and family to do the same thing

IF YOU WISH TO ADD MORE DETAIL, THEN SOME OR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING 4 POINTS COULD BE INCLUDED

The LGBTI population represents only 3% of the Australian population and only 0.7% of cohabiting couples (Australian Bureau Statistics). These couples ALREADY HAVE all the same rights as heterosexual de facto relationships. Why are we risking major societal change changing marriage laws for a small minority of Australians to give them much the same rights as they ALREADY HAVE?

Marriage is the foundational institution of our society and any redefinition to allow SSM has the potential to have significantly negative effects on our society.

I believe that the primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that wherever possible, children are raised by their biological mother and father. Marriage is therefore about what is best for our kids, not about validating the desires and feelings of adults.

SOME POSTCODES MAY SHOW MORE THAN ONE MP. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ALL THE MPS SHOWN

This following document sets forth the Privacy Policy for The Big Deal About Marriage website, www.thebigdealaboutmarriage.com.au.

We are committed to respecting your privacy and are bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which sets out a number of principles concerning the privacy of individuals.

Collection of your personal information

There are many aspects of the site which can be viewed without providing personal information, however, for access to some features or information you may be required to submit personally identifiable information. This may include but not limited to a your name, email address and postcode.

Sharing of your personal information

We may occasionally use other companies or organisations to provide services on our behalf, including but not limited to handling analysing information or sending emails. Those companies or organisations will be permitted to obtain only the personal information they need to deliver the service. We take reasonable steps to ensure that these organisations are bound by confidentiality and privacy obligations in relation to the protection of your personal information.

We may occasionally share contact information with like-minded not for profit organisations to provide services such as, but not limited to handling analysing information or sending emails. Those organisations will be permitted to obtain only the personal information they need to deliver the service. We take reasonable steps to ensure that these organisations are bound by confidentiality and privacy obligations in relation to the protection of your personal information.

Use of your personal information

For each visitor to reach the site, we expressively collect the following non-personally identifiable information, including but not limited to browser type, version and language, operating system, pages viewed while browsing the Site, page access times and referring website address. This collected information is used solely internally for the purpose of gauging visitor traffic, trends and delivering personalized content to you while you are at this Site.

From time to time, we may use customer information for new, unanticipated uses not previously disclosed in our privacy notice. If our information practices change at some time in the future we will use for these new purposes only, data collected from the time of the policy change forward will adhere to our updated practices.

Changes to this Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to make amendments to this Privacy Policy at any time. If you have objections to the Privacy Policy, you should not access or use the Site.

Accessing Your Personal Information

You have a right to access your personal information, subject to exceptions allowed by law. If you would like to do so, please let us know. You may be required to put your request in writing for security reasons. We reserve the right to charge a fee for searching for, and providing access to, your information on a per request basis.